General Election '24

[Woodchopper]

Well, well.

Two enormous swings to Labour. Is Sunak toast?

https://x.com/tamcohen/status/1758348800035266901?s=20

The size of the Tory defeats definitely has a 1997 feel to it.

But Sunak isn’t toast yet. He’ll remain as Prime Minister until the election later this year. He doesn’t want to be turfed out and no sensible politician would want to take over a few months before a defeat.

They’ll replace him after the election.

[headshot]

no sensible politician would want to take over

Ay, there’s the rub…

[jimbob]

Well, well.

Two enormous swings to Labour. Is Sunak toast?

https://x.com/tamcohen/status/1758348800035266901?s=20

The size of the Tory defeats definitely has a 1997 feel to it.

But Sunak isn’t toast yet. He’ll remain as Prime Minister until the election later this year. He doesn’t want to be turfed out and no sensible politician would want to take over a few months before a defeat.

They’ll replace him after the election.

Are you familiar with the sage of Liz Truss? And her evident ambitions.

[IvanV]

On the results of the by-elections we have just seen, Frosty's recent dubious poll suggesting that Reform will eat into the Conservative vote and lose them consituencies looks less implausible. His claim that it would lose them an election that is there to be won, well that's remains implausible.

Reform got 13% in Wellingborough and 10% in Kingswood, very much along the lines of the 10% vote the poll predicted. Tory+Reform was very slightly larger than the Labour vote in Kingswood, but Labour was comfortably much further ahead in Wellingborough. There was also a Britain First candidate in Kingswood, so the total fringe hard right vote there was 15%, to compare with the Tories 25%. But with the candidate being Bone's partner, there might have been an especial revulsion in voting for her among voters who still wanted to vote right of centre. Labour got 45-46% of the vote in both places, which can occasionally be insufficient to win an election, if there is a strong sense of a 2-horse race and tactical voting. The turnout seemed rather low in both places.

If this kind of pattern is replicated in a gen eral election, it would inevitably eat into the number of Tory seats. On the other hand, Green votes eat into the Labour/Lib-Dem vote, and Labour/Lib-Dem are also reducing each others' ability to keep the Tories out. Such are the features of FPP politics.

[FlammableFlower]

Kingswood, a ward I was in until the last boundary change, is about to be abolished and divided between Bristol North East, Filton and Bradley Stoke and North East Somerset and Hanham. So I wonder if turnout was low, with people thinking that any MP they have won't be around for long. Of the three new constituencies there, two are changes to current constituencies so have sitting MPs (both Tory, one being Rees-Mogg) whilst Bristol North East is new, being carved out of other old Bristol areas. Having said that, Damien Egan may well choose to stand for the new Bristol North East - in particular as it's a very traditionally Labour-voting area.

[JQH]

... Damien Egan may well choose to stand for the new Bristol North East - in particular as it's a very traditionally Labour-voting area.

Being cynical, I wonder if he's been given the nod that he's got the nomination. Otherwise he's not getting much return for giving up being Mayor of Lewisham.

[FairySmall]

... Damien Egan may well choose to stand for the new Bristol North East - in particular as it's a very traditionally Labour-voting area.

Being cynical, I wonder if he's been given the nod that he's got the nomination. Otherwise he's not getting much return for giving up being Mayor of Lewisham.

He was already selected as the candidate for Bristol NE, long before this by-election kicked off. So it's not cynical, he's probably hoping to get a few months practice!

[El Pollo Diablo]

I've written a blog with my predictions for the General Election

https://thingssamthinks.wordpress.com/2 ... -forecast/

[lpm]

That's a good piece.

My instinct is that polling errors are related to volatility of support. If there's movement, it's more likely there's opinion poll inaccuracy? Part of the error must be the election campaign and the Tory press going on the attack, which had more impact when voters are uncertain.

The current situation is remarkable in its constancy. Voters don't appear to be changing their mind, no matter what political events occur. I don't think we've ever seen this kind of extended period. My feeling is that this time voters won't be influenced at the last minute and switch their vote in the polling booth.

[Woodchopper]

We’ve discussed polling errors before.

At least in the more recent UK general elections (and US presidential elections) they tended to have a systematic bias in who will agree to be interviewed. When calling random phone numbers the great majority of people don’t answer an unknown number, or refuse to be interviewed if they do. This means that the people being interviewed are a somewhat unusual sub-set of the population which has tended to be more left wing. This problem has got worse over the years. They can get accurate numbers by picking random physical addresses and repeatedly visiting them until the occupants agree to be interviewed, but this is much more expensive and takes longer.

Polling companies like YouGov claim to have got round this problem by setting up internet based panels of people who participate in surveys. That obviously introduces another bias. But they claim to be able to have very accurate models of the voting population so they are better able to survey a representative sample of the population. That could work. The problem is that their models are based upon past events and the forthcoming election seems to be unusual.

So there may continue to be bias, but in a different form.

One additional complicating factor in predicting the outcome in parliament is that with first past the post there is a threshold after which a party gets wiped out. Some of the more recent polls have put the Tories at 20%. That’s less than the Liberal Democrat 22% share in 2010 when they got 62 MPs.

At some point with a national share in the lower 20s we’d see a collapse in the number of Tory MPs to somewhere closer to 50 than the hundreds we’re used to. Difficult to predict where the tipping point is though.

I’m not saying that’s going to happen, just that at the levels that the Tory party is polling it’s possible. People can check out the 1993 Canadian federal election where the conservatives went from to 156 seats to two 2 seats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Cana ... l_election

[dyqik]

That's a good piece.

My instinct is that polling errors are related to volatility of support. If there's movement, it's more likely there's opinion poll inaccuracy? Part of the error must be the election campaign and the Tory press going on the attack, which had more impact when voters are uncertain.

In recent years, polling errors have become much more likely, as response rates have plummeted, particularly among specific groups - due to caller ID, call screening, not picking the phone up to people you don't know, better Internet savvy, etc.. With standard phone polling that then weights responses by some mix of age, education, race and income groups, the responses that are received in hard to reach groups are then amplified (weighting also increases the error bars on a sample, and that's not usually included in the stated margin of error in polls).

That necessarily amplifies the responses given by unusual members of those groups (those that choose to answer polls). Where a question is nearly evenly split in that group, this doesn't matter so much, but when that group also has a very strong preference on a question, that is more likely to amplify dissenters from that preference than not (because the distribution is now one-sided). This latter effect is one source of the "crazification" effect in surveys, where you can find support at some level for anything. It also makes polls vulnerable to bad actors who lie to put themselves in the low response rate groups, or who lie about their opinions. Add in a potential real split in opinion between those that choose to answer the phone/that get offered a chance to participate, and then choose to take polls and those that don't (at both steps), and you can get big misses.

A recent tested example of this is the recent headlines where an online opt-in poll found that 30% of young people in the US believe that there wasn't a Holocaust. Recently a more robust poll that didn't have the same age-group-wise response bias as typical political polls found that number to be 3% - the same as found in other age groups.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... ic-adults/

Similar effects will occur in phone cold-calling polls, but probably not to the same level (people generally find it easier to lie online than on the phone with a person).

The polling level for Tories is getting low enough that in some groups these effects will be boosting their overall results significantly - similar things are likely happening in the US presidential polls. That can mitigate or exceed the shy Tory effect and lower propensity to vote for some hard to reach groups - and that propensity to vote is explicitly compensated for when US pollsters apply likely voter screens.

[lpm]

Right, but EPD was talking about the historical record of polling errors. Not recent problems.

As you'd know if you read the piece.

My guess is this historical bias was partly due to late shifts in voting decisions. And that this effect is smaller when political opinions are so stable, as now, and more of a risk in volatile conditions.

In other words, I'd not pick one of his scenarios where the historical bias is adjusted for.

[dyqik]

Right, but EPD was talking about the historical record of polling errors. Not recent problems.

As you'd know if you read the piece.

My guess is this historical bias was partly due to late shifts in voting decisions. And that this effect is smaller when political opinions are so stable, as now, and more of a risk in volatile conditions.

In other words, I'd not pick one of his scenarios where the historical bias is adjusted for.

I have read the piece.

Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. Reasons for polling misses in the past may or may not be repeated now, and may or may not be outweighed by new effects.

[monkey]

The last time I looked at a poll, which was a while back. Labour weren't ahead because they are winning over Tories, but because Tories were losing support to don't know and UKIP/Brexit/Reform (mostly don't know). Looking briefly now, it seems that hasn't changed much.

A lot of those don't knows will flock back when it comes down to putting an x in a box if there's a month of the right wing press telling us how Communist and Jimmy Saville hugger Starmer is going to steal their house for Angela Rayner scaring them into it. But I think that'll only happen if Starmer actually offers some change, rather than just doing the same but with more competence and a nicer face.

[Grumble]

Is there any reason to think Penny Mordaunt is any more competent than Sunak?

[TopBadger]

Is there any reason to think Penny Mordaunt is any more competent than Sunak?

Yeah - she can hold a heavy sword for a long time...

[dyqik]

Is there any reason to think Penny Mordaunt is any more competent than Sunak?

Yeah - she can hold a heavy sword for a long time...

Strange women with swords is no basis for a government.

[Trinucleus]

Is there any reason to think Penny Mordaunt is any more competent than Sunak?

Yeah - she can hold a heavy sword for a long time...

Strange women with swords is no basis for a government.

Compared to the previous two incumbents...?

[dyqik]

Yeah - she can hold a heavy sword for a long time...

Strange women with swords is no basis for a government.

Compared to the previous two incumbents...?

I'll take the anarchist collective.

[Hunting Dog]

Is there any reason to think Penny Mordaunt is any more competent than Sunak?

The more worrying question is if she's any more competant than Liz the lettuce.

[IvanV]

Is there any reason to think Penny Mordaunt is any more competent than Sunak?

The more worrying question is if she's any more competant than Liz the lettuce.

So much of the political posturing in the Tories of late has been about the hard right trying to get greater control of the party. Losing an election isn't a good look. So I wonder if anyone seriously wanting to be leader for the longer term would actually stand.

So this attack on Sunak's political competence can be seen as just part of the hard right trying to take control as best they can. Except, this time it's a well-targeted attack. Sunak is politically incompetent. It no longer matters whether the leader has any competence in policy, as most serious policy matters have been taken over by Hunt, in some kind of backroom deal a bit like the Blair-Brown deal. We just don't know the name of the restaurant this time. But Hunt channels Bond villain a bit too much to be leader himself, just as Brown himself was a terrible leader. And he'd have to change his name. I don't imagine any new leader is going to retrieve that back from Hunt, I think he has defined his empire, unless there is some total regime change.

Is Mordaunt actually the outcome the hard right want? She who got ragged in the leadership election for showing a bit more compassion towards trans people than Truss and Badenoch? Are they going to push for this if that is who they get?

And I have no reason to suspect Mordaunt of more policy competence a lettuce. She did, after all, support Truss once she was knocked out of that leadership contest, and so was unaware of that kind of problem. But if Hunt retains his current power, I don't think that matters. The essence of the complaint is that it is a competent front person they need.

[jimbob]

Is there any reason to think Penny Mordaunt is any more competent than Sunak?

The more worrying question is if she's any more competant than Liz the lettuce.

So much of the political posturing in the Tories of late has been about the hard right trying to get greater control of the party. Losing an election isn't a good look. So I wonder if anyone seriously wanting to be leader for the longer term would actually stand.

So this attack on Sunak's political competence can be seen as just part of the hard right trying to take control as best they can. Except, this time it's a well-targeted attack. Sunak is politically incompetent. It no longer matters whether the leader has any competence in policy, as most serious policy matters have been taken over by Hunt, in some kind of backroom deal a bit like the Blair-Brown deal. We just don't know the name of the restaurant this time. But Hunt channels Bond villain a bit too much to be leader himself, just as Brown himself was a terrible leader. And he'd have to change his name. I don't imagine any new leader is going to retrieve that back from Hunt, I think he has defined his empire, unless there is some total regime change.

Is Mordaunt actually the outcome the hard right want? She who got ragged in the leadership election for showing a bit more compassion towards trans people than Truss and Badenoch? Are they going to push for this if that is who they get?

And I have no reason to suspect Mordaunt of more policy competence a lettuce. She did, after all, support Truss once she was knocked out of that leadership contest, and so was unaware of that kind of problem. But if Hunt retains his current power, I don't think that matters. The essence of the complaint is that it is a competent front person they need.

Alternatively, Mordaunt is ambitious, everyone knows that failure is baked in so there would be zero expectations. A short stint as PM would get her pension and any book deals/lecture career a massive boost. Plus the influence of being on the Privvy Council.

It is probably her best chance and a low risk to her reputation

[Woodchopper]

The last time I looked at a poll, which was a while back. Labour weren't ahead because they are winning over Tories, but because Tories were losing support to don't know and UKIP/Brexit/Reform (mostly don't know). Looking briefly now, it seems that hasn't changed much.

Yes and no. Labour have polling in the mid-40s since the Truss debacle and that would normally be enough to get a majority, albeit not a landslide.

The problem for the Tories is that they’ve been polling in the mid-20s since Truss, and recent polls put them at about 20% (19 in today’s YouGov). As you write, this is due to the non-Labour vote being divided among the Tories, Reform, Greens, nationalists and the Liberals.

Tory support of 20-25% is into wipeout territory which if it were to be reflected in an election would result in the Tories losing hundreds of seats and Labour having a massive majority. If Sunak were to get 20% then he’d be looking at a party with something around 50 MPs.

So IMHO Labour would probably get a majority with what it’s polling. But a landslide would be due to lack of support for the Tories among the rest of the electorate.

[jimbob]

Surely even the nasty party supporters don't think it's a good look to send people to Rwanda even if they had worked for the British armed forces?

I guess they might be fine with deporting victims of modern slavery.

[IvanV]

Surely even the nasty party supporters don't think it's a good look to send people to Rwanda even if they had worked for the British armed forces?

I guess they might be fine with deporting victims of modern slavery.

I wonder what proportion of voters (both in general, and among people who have usually voted Tory in recent times) think that "the nasty party" is a good look, in contrast to Mrs May's previous thought that it was a bad look?

I suspect in practice, even among those who have a taste for a certain nastiness, there is a spectrum of how nasty is desirable until it crosses an individual's own red lines for too nasty. If the Tories continue to upgrade their nasty look, to try and recover the Reform/Reclaim/Galloway votes, how many will they lose at the other end?